Cited by 31Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesDigital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Research Topics

Comprehensive Online Self-Monitoring to Support Clinicians Manage Risk of Suicide in Youth Depression: A Pilot Study

Hetrick, Sarah E., Goodall, Joanne, Yuen, Hok Pan, Davey, Christopher G., Parker, Alexandra G., Robinson, Jo, Rickwood, Debra J., McRoberts, Alison +4 more·2017·Crisis

Abstract

Abstract. Background: Routine monitoring of depression symptoms and suicide risk is essential for appropriate treatment planning and risk management, but not well implemented by clinicians. We developed a brief online monitoring tool to address this issue. Aims: To investigate whether the online tool can feasibly improve monitoring; whether it is acceptable and useful for young people and their clinicians; and to determine whether a shorter tool could be implemented. Method: In a naturalistic longitudinal cohort study, 101 young people with depression completed the online tool on a tablet, prior to their consultation. Their results were immediately available to their clinician. Clients and clinicians answered questionnaires about acceptability and usefulness. Results: The tool was feasible to implement. Young people and clinicians found the tool acceptable and useful for understanding symptoms and risk. A brief three-item suicidal ideation screening measure correlated well with a validated measure of suicidal ideation. Conclusion: The online tool facilitates the quick exchange of key information about suicide risk, allowing clinicians to immediately address this. This level of responsiveness is likely to improve treatment outcomes. The brief version allows full integration into clinical practice to support clinicians managing those at risk of suicide.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/0227-5910/a000422

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hetrick, S. E., Goodall, J., Yuen, H. P., Davey, C. G., Parker, A. G., Robinson, J., Rickwood, D. J., McRoberts, A., Sanci, L., Gunn, J., Rice, S., & Simmons, M. B.
Affiliations
  • Orygen (AU)
  • Orygen Youth Health (AU)
  • University of Canberra (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Venue
Crisis
Published
2017-05
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
147-157
ISSN
  • 0227-5910 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-2396
OpenAlex
W2525336293
Cited by
31
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Crisis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
adolescent depression, suicide risk, clinician decision support, feasibility, acceptability, tablet-based assessment, risk management
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, Adult, Major Depressive Disorder, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Suicide, Cohort Studies, Risk Assessment, Internet, Young Adult, Self Report, Suicidal Ideation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review